Slashdot Mirror
Shooting At Canadian Parliament
CBC reports that a man pulled up to the War Memorial in downtown Ottawa, got out of his car, and shot a soldier with a rifle. The Memorial is right next to the Canadian Parliament buildings. A shooter (reportedly the same one, but unconfirmed) also approached Parliament and got inside before he was shot and killed. "Scott Walsh, who was working on Parliament Hill, said ... the man hopped over the stone fence that surrounds Parliament Hill, with his gun forcing someone out of their car. He then drove to the front doors of Parliament and fired at least two shots, Walsh said." Canadian government officials were quickly evacuated from the building, while the search continues for further suspects. This comes a day after Canada raised its domestic terrorism threat level. Most details of the situation are still unconfirmed -- CBC has live video coverage here. They have confirmed that there was a second shooting at the Rideau Center, a shopping mall nearby.
Dont let your idiots in parliment go all panic mode like the Raving Morons we have running this place in Washington DC.
This was a rare incident by a insane person, nothing more. Put more money into public mental health.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Yep, that worked so well.
Why do people who support gun control laws think the "War on Drugs" is futile?
Let me say this again, since it deserves repeating. Time and time again, posters on Slashdot talk about the 'fictitious' threat of terrorism that government uses as the excuse for encroachments on perceived liberties. You, the posters are the reason why an actual coordinated attack within a 'safe' democratic country is news on Slashdot.
I'm reminded of an evening, oh, many years ago now, when the annual Queen's University engineers pub crawl decided to descend on Ottawa. We had hired a bus, and during the 2-hour trip from Kingston to Ottawa had already consumed a few beers. To kick off the crawl, the bus pulled up on Parliament Hill and we all piled out for a group photo on the front steps. It was evening, and a gentle snow was falling, so about the only other person in the vicinity was a (female) RCMP officer.
We all lined up for the group photo, then for the second photo we all turned around and dropped trou, mooning the city of Ottawa, the US Embassy across the street, and the poor Mountie, who turned around and pretended nothing was happening. Then we all got back in the bus and headed for the first pub.
I shudder to think what the reaction would be if a group of students tried that in DC.
Ok i c....
So basically we should give up all our civil liberties, and live in a police state with harsher restrictions than sharia law WITH high tech tools to enforce it.
All in the name to "feel" safer? That is your solution?
I lived in Canada all my life. Do you know how many terrorists that wanted to kill me I have come face to face with? 0.
You know how many statistically speaking I am expected to come face to face with? 0
The probability of me being killed by terrorists in Canada is so close to 0, it might as well be 0.
If ever it happens, you know what, it's a tragedy, it sucks, I have the worst luck in the world, but at least I would die knowing he failed to scare us, he failed to take away the rights and freedoms so many others before me fought and died for.
For us to simply give them all up because we are scared due to a few crazed individuals is a disgrace to those who fought in WW1, WW2 and countless other conflicts, fighting against much more scarier threats....
It's 1, possibly 2 guys with long guns. Even if it is a "terrorist" attack, it's a rather pathetic and poorly organized/planned one. The "radicalized" Canadian was not a terrorist, he was a disturbed individual who latched onto the ideology on his own accord. There were no links to any terrorist organization, no indoctrination, etc - had he latched onto any other ideology (like aliens are real or the boogeyman is going to eat your children) and done the same the conversation would be very different.
How the hell can any attack against soldiers (of all people!) ever possibly be an act of terrorism? Having your soldiers get killed is certainly something to be justifiably pissed off about, but it's impossible for it to be terrorism. Even if a self-proclaimed "terrorist" does it, the act isn't terrorism. In conventional war (ask anyone, whether they grew up in 1200 BC or 1200 AD or 1812 or 1944 or 1971), soldiers are legitimate targets. The definitions didn't suddenly magically change in 2003 (or whenever it was) that US soldiers started getting picked off in Iraq.
Given a choice between real liberty and perceived safety, I'll take liberty, thanks.
The people trying to keep us "safe" by stripping away our freedoms are the ones I really worry about, no matter what political party they're from.
He was a soldier but he was not a combatant. Typically, terrorism is about targeting noncombatants, not non-soldiers (though non-soldiers are almost always noncombatants). Ottawa is not a warzone.
" Do you know how many terrorists that wanted to kill me I have come face to face with? 0.
Remove the "I have come face to face with" and that answer will certainly not be zero.
No, that answer will almost certainly still be zero. The answer to "Do you know how many terrorists want to kill a generic Westerner?" would not be zero, but who fucking cares? There's a few white people who would be happy to see a generic black person dead (and vice versa); there's a few Irish who would be happy to see a generic Englishman dead.
The relevant question is not whether there exist some people willing to kill your countrymen, because that will never be an empty set. The relevant question is whether those people are likely to actually kill more of your countrymen than moose, sharks, or bed sheets. The answer is that you should be much more frightened of bed sheets than either terrorists or sharks.
Mod parent down for lying. Soldiers are only legitimate targets for other soldiers or organized, uniformed (or at least "having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance") militia members controlled by a responsible commanding officer. I suggest you check Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention for the requirements of being a lawful combatant (there are many others beyond the couple I referenced). And let's not even go into the fact that the person in question is a citizen of the same country the soldier is of and there is not a state of civil war.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
When will people realise that Islam isn't the religion of peace? I suppose one good thing to come out of this is that next time people suggest that we appease the Muslims, that maybe if we just let them take more sex slaves and kill more non-muslims they'd leave us alone we can point out that even a moderate country like Canada is targeted by Muslims
So, no, neither Canada, nor the US, nor does just about any developed country need a bigger police, monitoring, border-controlling, etc. apparatus. They should probably try a bit harder to make sure that wealth and opportunity are distributed a bit more equitably and that people have a bit more say in what's being done for/to them and that might be a bit more cost-effective, but it's also a tangent along which I will not proceed further.
Because billionaire Osama bin Laden was upset about the unequal distribution of wealth, he attacked the United States?
had he latched onto any other ideology (like aliens are real or the boogeyman is going to eat your children)
Check out the hundreds of attacks listed at TheReligionOfPeace.com (the domain name is sarcastic, but the list is meticulously researched).
The fact is, there are no comparable websites for any other ideology -- nor would it be possible to create a comparable website for any other ideology, because there are no other ideologies that come anywhere close to inspiring that many acts of violence.
So why do you build up this strawman about "had he latched onto any other ideology"?